Taxacom: [KU SUSPECT SPAM] Re: Uleiota Latreille and Uleiota dubi*

Thu Jan 25 08:43:29 CST 2024

I share parts of Doug's answer, but I also can understand Mike's approach.

There are stability concerns behind Doug's thoughts. The Preamble of the 
ICZN Code talks about stability issues. Stability and universality are 
primary concerns of the Code, and also serve as guidelines for actions 
of the ICZN Commission.

Today there seems to be some consensus in the community that changing 
the ending of a species-group name affects what is widely understood to 
fall under the headline of stability. Changing a name from Uleiota 
planata to Uleiota planatus is an action that is considered to represent 
a sufficiently significant action that it interferes in stability issues 
and should be evaluated under such points of view.

The result is that many zoologists would consider it too much disruptive 
for the stability of nomenclature to change 10 or 15 % of the currently 
used species name endings (this proportion differs by animal group) to 
abandon gender agreement and revert to the endings of the species-group 
names in their original spellings.

In the Commission (and also in the Code-5 Editorial Committee) we need 
to consider that when we are going to propose a revision of the Code.

I personally think that the same thought should of course have relevance 
for the lepidopteran names, which follow a different tradition in terms 
of gender agreement since 1758. Changing the endings of many 
lepidopteran species names would get into the same conflict with the 
Code's Preamble. This should be considered carefully when we intend to 
establish a stable nomenclatural system for all animals for the future.

Best wishes
Francisco

Am 24.01.2024 um 18:26 schrieb Michael A. Ivie via Taxacom:
> When will we wise up and drop all this gender agreement nonsense?   It 
> serves no scientific purpose, and is not needed, as proven by over a 
> decade of success by the Lepidopterists.
> 
> Mike
> 
> On 1/24/2024 9:55 AM, Laurent Raty via Taxacom wrote:
>> **External Sender**
>>
>> Is there an actual reason to make this a vox hybrida (half-Greek,
>> half-French)...?
>>
>> My inclination would be to treat Uleiota as a latinization (with change
>> of ending) of ὑλειώτης (uleiôtês), which Greek dictionaries translate as
>> 'forester' -- itself formed from ὕλη (ulê), forest + -ώτης (-ôtês), a
>> Greek masculine noun-forming suffix, used i.a. to form some demonyms.
>> (In English, this suffix becomes -ot, as in 'Cypriot', an inhabitant of
>> Cyprus; this derivation is consistent enough with Latreille's subsequent
>> statement that the name means "habitant des forêts".)
>>
>> Although ὑλειώτης is clearly masculine in Greek, Uleiota "takes the
>> gender normally appropriate to [its] changed ending", which makes it
>> feminine under Art. 30.1.3. (This would be true even if Latreille had
>> treated it as masculine or neuter, explicitly or implicitly, I believe.)
>>
>> Latreille himself subsequently treated the name as feminine ("Uleiota
>> testacea") in this : https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F41892702&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=L0mAfihpNx1aOZ2eRP4eOM6iMEOaklg736BUwkP3cA0%3D&reserved=0.
>>
>> However, Uleiota appears indeed to have often been treated as masculine
>> -- e.g., see the many hits for that "Uleiota planatus" produce in Google
>> -- presumably because it was given the gender of the Greek word which it
>> was derived from.
>>
>>
>> This name was introduced in :
>>
>> Latreille PA. 1797. Précis des caractères gérériques des insectes,
>> disposés dans un ordre naturel. F Bourdeau, Brive; Prévôt, Paris.
>>
>> p. 46 : https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F42201834&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AOZ1KNHNkXWoaIuaz9g3EM6psV8GyiEyynhhHIdMKEQ%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> (This book has often been dated to 1796. The title page says "An 5 de la
>> R.", which means in the period 22 Sep 1796-21 Sep 1797. The book was
>> presented by Cuvier, on behalf of Latreille, to the Académie des
>> Sciences in Paris on 11 Pluviôse, An 5 = 30 Jan 1797, see
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgallica.bnf.fr%2Fark%3A%2F12148%2Fbpt6k3294s%2Ff177&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=rY%2FJ5VhHgmsEYXQPkp5mkmvxdz7p6rMGfpZdb1rNqPg%3D&reserved=0 .)
>>
>> The type species appears to be Cucujus flavipes Fabricius 1792, by
>> subsequent monotypy (cited as "Brontes flavipes, F.") in the 3rd vol. of
>> Histoire générale et particulière des crustacés et des insectes :
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biodiversitylibrary.org%2Fpage%2F24885085&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ailNNGlN8WOi0OGCQng5aOpR9Og6e7HOzTEy7ZlxnoQ%3D&reserved=0 . (Date of this act :
>> title page dated "An X", but a footnote on p. 59 referring to a work
>> published in An 11 conflicts with this; publication reported in J.
>> Typogr. Bibliogr. on 15 Brumaire, An 11 = 6 Nov 1802,
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fbooks.google.com%2Fbooks%3Fid%3DnDERAAAAIAAJ%26pg%3DPA42&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=1a5YYZX8Hat7QZVa%2BH29%2BwdSMV2OKVYHy%2FXS%2F3fiO9k%3D&reserved=0 .)
>>
>>
>> Cheers, Laurent -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 1/23/24 11:58, Mary Barkworth via Taxacom wrote:
>>> Thank you both for your clear and swift responses.  I am going ask 
>>> for a little more help. The author citation please! And then perhaps 
>>> Catalogue of Life could add at least one species to the genus and two 
>>> infraspecies - with authors.
>>>
>>> Mary
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Taxacom<taxacom-bounces at lists.ku.edu>  On Behalf Of Jacques 
>>> Melot via Taxacom
>>> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2024 3:05 AM
>>> To: Douglas Yanega<dyanega at gmail.com>;taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>>> Subject: Re: Taxacom: Uleiota Latreille and Uleiota dubi*
>>>
>>>    Le 22/01/24, à 17:09 -0800, nous recevions de Douglas Yanega via 
>>> Taxacom :
>>>
>>>> On 1/22/24 2:57 PM, Mary Barkworth via Taxacom wrote:
>>>>> Question: Should it be Uleiota dubius or U.
>>>>> dubia? The source I am looking at uses dubia for the specific epithet
>>>>> and dubius at the infraspecific level. I suspect that they should be
>>>>> the same - but which same?
>>>> Uleiota Latreille, 1797, was described with no originally included
>>>> species. The name is neither Latin nor Greek, so the gender is feminine
>>>> under ICZN Article 30.2.4. I see no way anyone could justify treatment
>>>> of the genus as masculine.
>>>>
>>>> Peace,
>>>      peace... d'accord. Pour le reste, Latreille donne l'étymologie 
>>> du nom Uleiota, en français Uléiote, dans Hist. gén. partic. Crut. 
>>> Insectes, tome XI (an XII, soit 1799), à la p. 257 :
>>>
>>> Uléiote [...] et nous en avons formé le genre uléiote (habitant des 
>>> forêts).
>>>
>>> « ule » est tiré du grec pour « forêt », le suffixe « -iote » est 
>>> français à valeur diminutive dans la formation des adjectifs et de 
>>> même origine (latine) que le diminutif bien connu « -ette » 
>>> (allumette, lunette, opérette, majorette, etc. Cf. Oxford English 
>>> Dictionary à « -ette »).
>>>
>>>      Le mot est donc formé sur le modèle de Pholiote (fr.) > Pholiota 
>>> (Psalliota, Lepiota, etc., tous des féminins en latin botanique).
>>>
>>>      Pour les suffixes français voir par exemple (à -ot, -otte, -ote, 
>>> -iotte, etc.) :
>>>
>>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitrobert.lerobert.com%2Fdemo%2Faidepr%2Fpages%2FSuffixesO.HTML&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=EhEzbMax%2Fhxz58AdWimBYa%2F9o7IpmoWY%2BFnWbxFqGVs%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>>      Salutations,
>>>
>>>      Jacques Melot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at lists.ku.edu
>> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, visit: 
>> https://lists.ku.edu/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at: taxacom-owner at lists.ku.edu
>> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: 
>> https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftaxacom.markmail.org%2F&data=05%7C02%7Ctaxacom%40lists.ku.edu%7Cb54cd0c822a94d26fbb808dc1db3fcb6%7C3c176536afe643f5b96636feabbe3c1a%7C0%7C0%7C638417906088809659%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Szo2zOapduJPfqCF6yuNeu6MyQ48BQ9a4EIAsuw1bcQ%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Nurturing nuance while assailing ambiguity and admiring alliteration 
>> for about 37 years, 1987-2024.
> 